Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

“Bail Denied to Accused Allegedly Running Jihadi WhatsApp Group: Allahabad Court Cites Gravity of Allegations”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judicial decision, the Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., presiding over Court No. 75, rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of running a WhatsApp group that spread jihadi literature and videos. The applicant, identified as Inamul Haq alias Inamul Imtiyaz, was charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments.

The FIR lodged against Inamul Haq revealed disturbing allegations. The applicant was alleged to have formed a WhatsApp group that disseminated literature classified as jihadi, along with sharing videos promoting extremist ideologies. The applicant was reportedly the administrator of the group and even admitted to aspiring to become a “jihadi.” The FIR also mentioned that Inamul Haq was associated with a group known as “Lashkar,” and that he had been operating a WhatsApp group for a significant duration.

The prosecution argued that the applicant’s involvement went beyond merely spreading literature. It was alleged that the WhatsApp group actively facilitated the acquisition of weapons, further escalating the gravity of the charges. The group was purportedly responsible for enticing individuals to join its ranks.

The court’s observation stressed the seriousness of the allegations and the potential threat posed to public order. Citing the relevant legal provisions, including Section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the offense of conspiring to overawe the Central or State Government through criminal force. While acknowledging the right to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the court noted that the nature of the allegations indicated the potential conspiracy to commit a serious offense.

In light of the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk to public order, the court concluded that no case for granting bail was established. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

This decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and potential threats to national security. The court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the allegations underscores the need to ensure public order while safeguarding fundamental rights.

The rejection of the bail application sends a strong message about the court’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining public safety in cases that involve potential conspiracy and promotion of extremist ideologies.

Date of Decision: 9.8.2023

Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz  vs State of U.P.   

Latest Legal News